Why are the Media so Anti-Villa?

[Monty]

I'm sorry, I know the media habitually favour London clubs and all that, but Jack Wilshere is Iniesta-like in his talent. That Bolton fan clearly doesn't really get football if he thinks Wilshere's "average at best". And as for favouring Arsenal's two English players, the media are hardly wanking themselves into a frenzy about Walcott, despite his very good form. In fact they're quite split over him.

[Nastylee]

Wilshere - From what I've seen he probably has potential but he's far from the saviour of the national game. How would you rate his success against that of Albrighton for instance? Wilshere has scored once to my knowledge and although he keeps the ball I'm not sure he's made a massive impact on a game as yet. I do believe some are getting carried away with his apparent 'rise to fame'.

[TimTheVillain]

I'm sorry, I know the media habitually favour London clubs and all that, but Jack Wilshere is Iniesta-like in his talent. That Bolton fan clearly doesn't really get football if he thinks Wilshere's "average at best". And as for favouring Arsenal's two English players, the media are hardly wanking themselves into a frenzy about Walcott, despite his very good form. In fact they're quite split over him.

Indeed.

Wilshire may well be 'the future' - at 19 ( is it?) he is some talent, however last night he was OK, just OK.

Walcott blows hot and cold for the Arse and luke warm for England and the media know he's less likely to be 'the future' than Wilshere.

Non the less, Ash was great all second half - and the kind of coverage he's had is low level compared to what would be the case if he was with ManUre or a

That Bolton fan is an idiot then. Wilshire is very good, there aren't many English players that would look as comfortable in the Arsenal midfield. The hype this week has been ridiculous but there is no denying his ability.

In his defense ( the Bolton fan that is), he is  Bolton fan.

[Concrete John]

The comnparison between Wilshire and Albrighton and what it says about how the media treats the respective clubs is a good one.

Wilshire is a talent and should progress into a top class player, but were he doing that a Villa he wouldn't be anywhere near the England squad and those idiots on Talksport wouldn't even know who he was. 

[Monty]

The comnparison between Wilshire and Albrighton and what it says about how the media treats the respective clubs is a good one.

Wilshire is a talent and should progress into a top class player, but were he doing that a Villa he wouldn't be anywhere near the England squad and those idiots on Talksport wouldn't even know who he was. 

That's just rubbish, though. Well, not the Talksport bit, but if he were at Villa he would still be in the England squad. You can't tell me Capello is anti-Villa or has some aversion to picking Villa players after last night, or that he is influenced by media bias when he does things like call up Jay Bothroyd!

[Meanwood Villa]

Wilshere is massively over-rated.

[Concrete John]

That's just rubbish, though. Well, not the Talksport bit, but if he were at Villa he would still be in the England squad. You can't tell me Capello is anti-Villa or has some aversion to picking Villa players after last night, or that he is influenced by media bias when he does things like call up Jay Bothroyd!

No, he does come to Villa games and picks our players.  What I'm saying is that, for whatever reason, more attention is paid to players at certain clubs and that does translate into some favouritism.  Remember when McClaren wouldn't pick Barry?  Would that have been the case had he have been playing for one of the top four or a Spurs?  Had Wilshire done what's he done for Arsenal so far in a Villa shirt he wouldn't have been playing last night. 

[Monty]

Wilshere is massively over-rated.

Based on what? Forget the journos, you're saying you know better than Capello, Wenger, SGT, Ferguson, Lippi, Smith, Guardiola and everyone? Those are just the people I remember offering effusive praise for Wilshere, I'm sure there's more.

John, you acknowledge that Capello picks our players and then explain your point based on what Steve McClaren did. If club matters so much, why were Young and Downing preferred to Johnson and Lennon? They play for the clubs you'd expect to be favoured.

[Merv]

Wiltshere's talented. Not the answer to England's midfield prayers but definitely good enough to be involved in the squad at the present time. In fact he reminds me a bit in style and stature of our own Barry Bannan.

Anyway, the problem isn't so much with Wiltshire, it's about shoe-horning him into this 'holding' role. No. Doesn't suit him. I've had this discussion about 'holding' midfielders often - on here, but mostly to bored work colleagues or myself. It wasn't until I read this comment from Gary Neville, in the Guardian, that I found someone else who shared my view:

According to Gary Neville, who observed many experiments in the England holding role during 85 international appearances, the hard-tackling quarterback is a modern myth. Neville says: "What happens in football is that there are trends. People see a [Claude] Makelele and say – you need a holding midfield player. Well, do you? Man Utd won the European Cup with [Michael] Carrick and [Paul] Scholes as central midfield players. All of a sudden Makelele defines the Makelele role and everyone says you've got to have a Makelele. What you need is good players who recognise danger. The idea that you need a natural holding midfielder – I don't go along with that."

I maintain that if you have two disciplined central midfield players, you don't need a designated 'holder' and a designated 'attacker'. Midfielders used to do everything. This whole 'Lampard/Gerrard' tedious debate stretching years could have been avoided had they both been instructed to play central midfield properly.

[Monty]

If you don't play a designated holder, then you need to play 3 bona fide midfielders, no specialists either going forward, like Ash, or defensively, like Makelele.

[Concrete John]

John, you acknowledge that Capello picks our players and then explain your point based on what Steve McClaren did. If club matters so much, why were Young and Downing preferred to Johnson and Lennon? They play for the clubs you'd expect to be favoured.

There are no hard and fast rules about it, just a perception I have.  Young and Downing have played more and better than Lennon and Johnson so far this season, so they're in.  My direct comparison was between Wilshire and Albrighton, who have done well for their clubs in a rookie season and I'd put more or less on a par right now, yet one is starting for England and the other isn't even a squad consideration - why?  For me, it's at least partly due to the way Wilshire gets talked up by the press.   

[Monty]

I think it's more the way they play their positions. Albrighton has been outstanding but is clearly lacking a bit in maturity, giving away free kicks at bad times in bad positions, trying to beat his man in his half and losing the ball and so on. Wilshere plays his position with a maturity that a manager knows he can rely on. He almost never loses the ball, produces the odd moment of prodigious magic sure, but also a) doesn't make mistakes and b) is unlikely to be fazed by the occasion.

[Merv]

If you don't play a designated holder, then you need to play 3 bona fide midfielders, no specialists either going forward, like Ash, or defensively, like Makelele.

See? You've been sucked in to the propaganda, Monty. It's me and Gary Neville against the world.

Seriously, Ashley Young's role is different in that he's not playing as a central midfielder, he's a second striker.

You get two disciplined, talented, physically fit central midfielders comfortable in possession and they don't need to operate as a strict holder/sitter and a free attacking role. Keane/Scholes... Vieira/Petit... they had understandings of what to do. Be interesting to see how Bradley and Makoun operate for us.

[Concrete John]

I think it's more the way they play their positions. Albrighton has been outstanding but is clearly lacking a bit in maturity, giving away free kicks at bad times in bad positions, trying to beat his man in his half and losing the ball and so on. Wilshere plays his position with a maturity that a manager knows he can rely on. He almost never loses the ball, produces the odd moment of prodigious magic sure, but also a) doesn't make mistakes and b) is unlikely to be fazed by the occasion.

Fair enough - I rate the lad too.

But I could just as easily throw stats at it and say Marc's scored 4 goals to Wilshire's 1.  I didn;t dig our the assists, but I'd guess he's pretty far ahead on that as well.

Incidentially, discipline wise they've both picked up 3 bookings, but Wilshire has also been sent off.

The point being that there's a very strong case to say if ones involved so should the other, but there's not even been a shred of press attention to our player.

[Concrete John]

If you don't play a designated holder, then you need to play 3 bona fide midfielders, no specialists either going forward, like Ash, or defensively, like Makelele.

See? You've been sucked in to the propaganda, Monty. It's me and Gary Neville against the world.

Seriously, Ashley Young's role is different in that he's not playing as a central midfielder, he's a second striker.

You get two disciplined, talented, physically fit central midfielders comfortable in possession and they don't need to operate as a strict holder/sitter and a free attacking role. Keane/Scholes... Vieira/Petit... they had understandings of what to do. Be interesting to see how Bradley and Makoun operate for us.

Best example I can think of of that was Keane and Ince for Man Utd - they took turns in getting forward and the one left sitting was able to defend effectively.